Completing the AQAL model: Quadrants, states and types
Monday, 28. August 2006, 18:42:27
So let's finish this AQAL business. I admit to not having much knowledge about it and that writing these posts is mostly an educational tool for increasing my own understanding of the topic.
Anyway, here we go:
AQAL: Quadrants
Quadrants is the foundation stone of the map of reality that the AQAL model paints. The quadrant model is exactly what it sounds like, four parts (holons) making up a greater whole. The two upper quadrants are individual whereas the two lower quadrants are collective. The two left quadrants are interior while the two right quadrants are exterior.
UPPER LEFT - I/Subjective/1st person
This is the interior dimension of the human being, including thoughts, emotions, spirituality, intuition, logic etc. It is basically the quadrant of consciousness and represents our day to day experience at whichever level we're at.
UPPER RIGHT - IT/Objective/2nd person
This is the interior of the human biological organism, that is our body. Literally every part of the human body: the brain, hormones, tissue, muscle, organs etc make up the body of the upper right quadrant.
LOWER LEFT - WE/Intersubjective/3rd person
This is the intersubjective space, the WE space, where we find things such as culture, shared history, ideologies etc. A phenomenon like the Renaissance happened in a WE space, albeit a
surprisingly small one.
LOWER RIGHT - ITS/Interobjective
Now this last quadrant is still a bit hazy to me, but it's basically the domain where the WE space touch the material world of reality. How do human beings best organize to meet the challenges of everyday existence? Structures like the nuclear family, tribes, empires, nation states (and that which comes after) fit into this quadrant. So do the modes of said structures, like agrarian, industrial, informational etc. Functionality is the purpose, what is the most efficient way.
These four quadrants are commonly reduced to the big three: I, we and it/Art, morals, science/The beautiful, the good and the true.
AQAL: States
A state experience is essentially having a taste of a level of consciousness which the psyche has not yet been integrated on. These are commonly referred to as religious experiences and have the potential to infuse and expand the mind through direct experience of the Mystery. However, as a state (as opposed to a stage) is a temporary experience, it will - when it is over - be interpreted from the current stage of consciousness of the individual. This could lead to e.g. a Mythic/fundamentalist individual having a transpersonal state experience believing he has actually spoken to Jesus, when the truth was much deeper.* That is, a direct experience of truth, of non-duality can be dragged down to the stage of fundamentalism where it can potentially strengthen the narcissistic drive of the confused individual (there's nothing to drive people crazy quite like a license to kill granted by God). However, generally these states lead to positive results, whether it is a near-death experience, a feeling of deep union with nature or a sexual partner or indeed God or the universe; states can act as catalysts to launch individuals onto the next stage of the consciousness ladder.
* Which is not to say that suggesting you have spoken to Jesus is in itself ridiculous; it just so happens that nine out of ten (okay, maybe that's unfair - let's say three out of four) people who make this claim have a relationship to God which is about as advanced as that which kids have to Santa Claus. When you REALLY speak to Jesus, you don't say, as you know that such a claim pulls the experience into the relative world of concepts where the truth of the experience is lost. Any preacher who runs around on stage shouting Halleluja is therefore by default a fraud.
AQAL: Types
Types is sort of tacked on at the end of the AQAL model. The model would stand well without types, but it does ingest some humility in the model. It is more than anything an indicator of the AQAL model's inherent incompleteness; no conceptual map can encompass all of reality, Truth itself. Types is basically the "other" section of the AQAL model where things such as gender, Jungian archetypes etc are paid homage to. They all represent very real parts of reality, but they don't significantly affect the other parts of the model (e.g while Men and Women have different bodies, we have, at the end of the day and given the right conditions, the same opportunities).
That completes the AQAL model. I will take a break from this consciousness yapping now, time to loosen up a little.
Anyway, here we go:
AQAL: Quadrants
Quadrants is the foundation stone of the map of reality that the AQAL model paints. The quadrant model is exactly what it sounds like, four parts (holons) making up a greater whole. The two upper quadrants are individual whereas the two lower quadrants are collective. The two left quadrants are interior while the two right quadrants are exterior. UPPER LEFT - I/Subjective/1st person
This is the interior dimension of the human being, including thoughts, emotions, spirituality, intuition, logic etc. It is basically the quadrant of consciousness and represents our day to day experience at whichever level we're at.
UPPER RIGHT - IT/Objective/2nd person
This is the interior of the human biological organism, that is our body. Literally every part of the human body: the brain, hormones, tissue, muscle, organs etc make up the body of the upper right quadrant.
LOWER LEFT - WE/Intersubjective/3rd person
This is the intersubjective space, the WE space, where we find things such as culture, shared history, ideologies etc. A phenomenon like the Renaissance happened in a WE space, albeit a
surprisingly small one.
LOWER RIGHT - ITS/Interobjective
Now this last quadrant is still a bit hazy to me, but it's basically the domain where the WE space touch the material world of reality. How do human beings best organize to meet the challenges of everyday existence? Structures like the nuclear family, tribes, empires, nation states (and that which comes after) fit into this quadrant. So do the modes of said structures, like agrarian, industrial, informational etc. Functionality is the purpose, what is the most efficient way.
These four quadrants are commonly reduced to the big three: I, we and it/Art, morals, science/The beautiful, the good and the true.
AQAL: States
A state experience is essentially having a taste of a level of consciousness which the psyche has not yet been integrated on. These are commonly referred to as religious experiences and have the potential to infuse and expand the mind through direct experience of the Mystery. However, as a state (as opposed to a stage) is a temporary experience, it will - when it is over - be interpreted from the current stage of consciousness of the individual. This could lead to e.g. a Mythic/fundamentalist individual having a transpersonal state experience believing he has actually spoken to Jesus, when the truth was much deeper.* That is, a direct experience of truth, of non-duality can be dragged down to the stage of fundamentalism where it can potentially strengthen the narcissistic drive of the confused individual (there's nothing to drive people crazy quite like a license to kill granted by God). However, generally these states lead to positive results, whether it is a near-death experience, a feeling of deep union with nature or a sexual partner or indeed God or the universe; states can act as catalysts to launch individuals onto the next stage of the consciousness ladder.
* Which is not to say that suggesting you have spoken to Jesus is in itself ridiculous; it just so happens that nine out of ten (okay, maybe that's unfair - let's say three out of four) people who make this claim have a relationship to God which is about as advanced as that which kids have to Santa Claus. When you REALLY speak to Jesus, you don't say, as you know that such a claim pulls the experience into the relative world of concepts where the truth of the experience is lost. Any preacher who runs around on stage shouting Halleluja is therefore by default a fraud.
AQAL: Types
Types is sort of tacked on at the end of the AQAL model. The model would stand well without types, but it does ingest some humility in the model. It is more than anything an indicator of the AQAL model's inherent incompleteness; no conceptual map can encompass all of reality, Truth itself. Types is basically the "other" section of the AQAL model where things such as gender, Jungian archetypes etc are paid homage to. They all represent very real parts of reality, but they don't significantly affect the other parts of the model (e.g while Men and Women have different bodies, we have, at the end of the day and given the right conditions, the same opportunities).
That completes the AQAL model. I will take a break from this consciousness yapping now, time to loosen up a little.
(11%)
WIDGETIZE
Neri Bar-On # 4. September 2006, 06:13
This is very powerfull way to get into the Integral prespective. and i wish to add my 2cents.
I read you say "The quadrant model is exactly what it sounds like, four parts (holons) making up a greater whole." and it differ from my understanding (you know no one has 100% error ...)
I understand the Holon as a "whole system" that manifest full AQAL prespectives. hence the 4 quadrants are map of 1 holon from its 4 combinations views - Internal/external|cullective/Individual.
The Holon can "evolve" throgh translation and enhance its "stability" and can "evolve" throgh "transfomation" by introducing new "states" of its manifestation.
I understand Wilber's position that our whole Kosmos is actually 1 Holon evolve by transcend and Include less "Wholistic" Holons and express the 1 taste of existence where it complete the paradoxical nature of the 4 qudrants.
Neri
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 6. September 2006, 08:41
Yeah, maybe you're right. I haven't studied the holon concept very closely. Give me some time to think about it! hehe
Thanks for the input
Neri Bar-On # 12. September 2006, 18:12
Enjoy
Neri
Note: in AQAL metatheory, the manifest Kosmos is composed of holons in various perspectives. A holon is a whole/part—or a whole that is simultaneously a part of other wholes—e.g., a whole atom is part of a whole molecule, which is part of a whole cell, which is part of a whole organism, etc. Individual holons, all the way down—atoms, quarks, fermions—possess a spark of sentience or prehension, so that all individual holons are sentient beings. All individual holons are also what Whitehead called " compound individuals ," or individuals compounded of junior individuals: a cell is a compound individual, compounded of molecules, which are compound individuals compounded of atoms, which are compound individuals compounded of....
When any occasion (or holon) is looked at in a first-person stance ( as an "I" or sentient being), then we find the types of phenomena listed in the UL quadrant (such as prehension, feeling, impulses, awareness, consciousness, etc.) When that same holon is looked in a third-person or objective fashion ( as an "it" ), then we find the types of phenomena listed in the UR quadrant (such as a holon's mass, morphic form, and energy, all of which can be described in third-person or "it" terms, unlike the UL, which can only be described in "I" terms). We are at this point tracing the evolution of holons by looking at their exterior forms of matter and energy (i.e., events in the UR quadrant) as they emerged in the course of evolution.
The general stages of this evolutionary emergence are suggested in figure 7 with regard to their UR forms. When a holon is looked at in a third-person or objective stance, we find that material bodies—such as atoms, molecules, cells—are surrounded by energy fields which are, by connecting hypothesis #3, correlated with increasing degrees of complexity of gross material form. Each of these energy fields—physical, astral, etheric, etc.—surround and envelop their junior fields just as their associated material forms surround and envelop their junior forms (e.g., a cell envelops molecules, which envelop atoms, etc.). Thus, the compound individuals and their associated energy fields are both "holonic." We will return to these points as we proceed.
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 12. September 2006, 20:11
Your definition of sentience is a little on the loose side though. It does not seem pragmatic to me and a slight attempt at pigeon-holing reality into a model. At the same time, if we talk of sentience as the matter from which everything arises - emptiness if you will, then I guess I'm okay with it. But by that reasoning, a rock is sentient. I'm not denying that on the ultimate level, manifestation springs out of Spirit, of consciousness itself, but that's not the same thing as saying a rock is sentient. It's the same sort of dilemma you have with enlightenment. If the rock was sentient, by the same line of reasoning I would already be enlightened. But I'm not. But I am. But I'm not. And it all quickly becomes a game that defies concepts altogether.
It's not pragmatic to think of e.g bacteria as sentient beings, because that would make the bodhisattva vow an impossibility - you could not even accept medication as it might endanger the sentient beings you have avowed to protect. That is silly, no? However, the model does include a sliding scale of degrees of depth in each of the four quadrants, does it not? I guess by that token, you can take the liberty of placing the sentience of bacteria on the lowest rung, but even then we would find that the claim of sentience invalidates the bodhisattva vow which is so crucial to all genuine spiritual practitioners.
As for the other points, I think you're bang on the money even though I need to read the PDF file you so generously provided.
Neri Bar-On # 14. September 2006, 07:48
The text is copied from the PDF, These are Ken's word; hence the "sentience" problem is embedded in the Wilberian Integral view.
I am sorry I was not clear about it.
I think the easy way is to add the "Holarchy" that emerge from acceptance of the concept of the Holon.
When "holon is a whole/part—or a whole that is simultaneously a part of other wholes" you can see the "verticality" of the Holonic world. Holons are not the same development stage, but they must contain the components and potential to synthesis the higher levels of the Holonic world from its lower levels. Hence they have to include all perspective, and the "sentience" is a developmental level of the whole but not need to have the same "values" related to it.
The Holons keep the dynamics of "transcend and include" that has some similarities to the Hegelian dialectic process where higher more complex entities emerge.
Wilber talks of different holonic interactions as "heaps" and "artifacts" and also differentiate the "social Holon" from the "Holon".
Don't rush with the text, this Wilber wrote so much we need to take the time and enjoy the morphing and re-aligning our personal world view. From my UL I can tell you that my experience of reality transformed when I learned and exercise experiencing reality through the "Holonic" glasses.
Here some more related text
http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?kofman.html (I love Fred Kofman)
http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?smith18x.html
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 15. September 2006, 09:17
So please accept my concern as that of the devil's advocate. Now I hope you can take the role as defense attorney and defend this apparent weakness in the model. Because I'm sure it's accounted for, just not in what we have been discussing so far.
And yeah, I love Fred Kofman too!
Neri Bar-On # 16. September 2006, 13:55
You are tempting me with your devilish power to engage a 1st tier discussion, so I refuse.
I'll love dance with you through Integral ideas, please forgive me not being complete with the reference and content. Also help me see it through your eyes when you find the ideas problematic within the Integral framework we investigate together. As e-friend who are integrally informed It can bring us great joy.
You bring the question:
How can we keep the bodhisattva vow if curing a common cold means murdering millions of sentient beings?
There are some ways to react to this, I'll mention some of them briefly; I am sure there are more then this.
I'll suggest the principle of Integral investigation described in " AN INTEGRAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS" http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm where Wilber bring about 12 descriptions of the consciousness and map them in multi-dimensional AQAL Integral map of consciousness.
So here some dance moves describes as attacks for the "Orange" reader simplicity. I understood that your question address the core problem of ranking sentient beings within one Kosmo-Sentient being:
LL/LR attack – There are many interpretations of the Bodhisattva, why did you pick this understanding of the text?
Bodhisattva is a text and its hermeneutic interpretation are wide, so you bring here one interpretation of the text, to integrally understand the Bodhisattva you need to map the whole schools of understanding, where some of them may interpretation the same text from a different level of wisdom, as seen in other human traditions.
UR attack – No one is 100% right, no one is 100% wrong
Bodhisattva is a text acceptance not need to be textual and some ideas can be modified in evolved understanding of the text. The text with its rituals and understanding is the core of the Wisdom, when accepting that some of the Wisdoms were not available at the time these Bodhisattva traditions emerged. So we can hold "contradictions"
LR attack – The Verticality of emergence through holonic transcends and include connects the Whole dimensions of reality, so sentient beings has different function within our wholistic sphere-ed reality. The Wisdom is to enable the emergence and sustainability of the Kosmic Being complex-systematic thinking-judgment about the meaning of life regards different recognized parts of the Kosmos.
Neri Bar-On # 16. September 2006, 14:49
"As infinite, all-prevading and all-embracing Consciousness, it is both One and Many,Only and All, Source and Suchness, Cause and Condition, such that all things are only a gesture of the One, and all fors a play upon it. As Infinity, it demands wisdom; and as ones true Self, it demands identity.
"In its being, it has no obstruction, and this no obstructionprevades the cosmos. In its action, it keaves no trace, and this no trace continues forever. Bliss beyond bliss beyond bliss, it cannot be felt. Light beyond light beyond light, it cannot be detected. Only obvious, it is not even suspected. Only present, it shines even now."
- Ken Wilber, The Atman Project (Collected Writings 2 p. 239)
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 16. September 2006, 16:46
Hi again, Neri.
First of all, there seems to be a slight element of preaching in your post. I'm already converted so that is really not necessary.
Second, the way I read you, it seems that you consider my attempt at starting a serious inquiry into a possible problem with AQAL terminology as 1st tier. I find that quite troubling. I hope it's my own shadows and not your arrogance that I'm observing, because if I didn't know better, I'd say you were using 2nd tier as a hiding place.
As for the bodhisattva principle, it's not a book, it's a spiritual principle of being a guardian of all sentient life. It's originally a buddhist term, but it has been adopted by many as a universal principle of compassion. You are probably getting it mixed up with Shantideva's Bodhicharyavatara ("The Way of the Bodhisattva"), one of the most important texts in all of Tibetan Buddhism.
However, this is not about books or theories, it's about experience and if we cannot give our own experience enough room to question our theoretical understanding, then we are lost in a maze from which we will never escape.
Essentially what I'm saying is that I'm not interested in Ken Wilber's opinion (I've heard it many times), I'm interested in yours. Where are you in all of this?
Thanks again for your contributions
Neri Bar-On # 17. September 2006, 08:51
Thank you for the moderation; I sometimes confrontational myself so I hope you'll find in your hart to forgive me (see the 2nd tier explanation below). ... I have shadows too.
I also read as preaching some times, I think some of it comes from my English which is not superb so it easier for me to quote. I hope you can tolerate my preacher accent, it probably reduce and be more comfortable.
I owe you some explanation about this 1st/2nd tier talk. I take "advocats" as kind of 1st tier technology to revile "true" by bringing two sides that are committed to prove the one side superiority over the other side, they play to "win" and not to "share".
while there is probably some truth in any of the "sides" we take "Dancing" metaphor describe dynamics that enable us to switch sides, enjoy and learn together about these ideas. But this is just to emphasis my point of view, I am willing to play any game (include being Devil's advocate of Integral advocate). I think that whatever metaphor you choose the idea to investigate into these ideas a 2nd tier since you are seeking to experience and understand this term through investigative process.
- Last comment about Tiers – Don Beck say that you cannot get 2nd Tier inelegance without the 2nd Tier Life conditions, i.e. I cannot claim any 2nd tier thinking living in semi-green, dominant-ORANGE, stable-BLUE Israel society.
I use Ken Wilber reference of "Integral system thinking" and quote him, but the passion is toward the "Integral" perspective as re-framing and evaluating scope of reality and Human wisdom. Ken's proposed Integral view is one of the most clearer that I introduced to. When I bring Ken's Ideas I am trying to bring the ones that I agree with.
In your description here you referenced to the Quadrants as combination of 4 Holons, where I understood Holon to be a whole AQAL manifestation in Wilber's language.
The question you raised in buddhist term may not be clear for me, So lets try again.
I accept the Holarchy of the Great chain of Being and I see spiritual traditions as parallel lines of development, so I am much less knowledgeable in the buddhist understanding of "a spiritual principle of being a guardian of all sentient life." And I am less "experience" in being such guardian from Buddhist tradition. I am more coming from the "philosophical" traditions of the West and influenced by the Jewish traditions, I think that Spinoza concepts of Nature are actually are directed to the same structures of network of inter-related sentient being.
I experienced the non-dual state as it connects you to whole being so you may recognize that We are the One Sentient beings organ of the Kosmos and with all our resilient the urge of evolution in involution require a sustainable whole spheres, hence "principle of being a guardian of all sentient life" accepted and push me into the Ecological activism.
Yet, I am not vegetarian nor think that the principle apply to this nature of human being at our time.
Hope you can relate to this view.
Neri
Tel-Aviv
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 17. September 2006, 10:46
For one who claims to have a limited grasp of the English language, you use an awful lot of fancy words. I have trouble following sometimes
And of course, just as I don't know much about Judaism, I cannot expect you to have deep insight into Buddhism. However, the bodhisattva principle is a common concept in integral circles, so you will probably come across it again.
As for 1st/2nd tier debate, yes I completely agree. 1st tier debate implies a stated goal of 'winning', of being right, whereas 2nd tier debate implies a stated goal of evolving, of growing. When I asked you to be defense attorney, it was with a 2nd tier motivation - I wanted you to fill me in. That's why I wondered why you interpreted it as an invitation to 1st tier argument.
As for Don Beck's argument that you cannot get 2nd tier consciousness without 2nd tier life conditions, I must say I disagree. Does he really mean that? What are these 2nd tier life conditions then? As far as I can tell, most of us integrally oriented folks live in societies that aren't integral at all. And while that may cause us plenty of frustration, it doesn't mean we regress back to 1st tier level. We have ILP - Integral Life Practice - in whatever form we choose to prevent that from happening. With that in our toolbox, I cannot see how Don Beck is right on this one. Sounds like a copout and a dismissal of personal responsibility. Maybe false humility on your part?
Thanks again for your contributions!
Eivind